Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Tom Scott found a declassified document that reveals a secret government plot to improve Yorkshire. Just in time to remind the world that mutual assured destruction is a slippery slope of serial self owns   (youtube.com) divider line
    More: Creepy  
•       •       •

959 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2022 at 9:05 PM (24 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-02-20 9:10:32 PM  
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions
 
2022-02-20 9:17:04 PM  

C18H27NO3: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions


That's called the military industrial complex.
 
2022-02-20 9:21:22 PM  
Tom Scott is the Shoreditch Vampire.
 
2022-02-20 9:25:39 PM  
Bradford could use a little refresh.
 
2022-02-20 9:29:11 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-02-20 9:32:38 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: C18H27NO3: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions

That's called the military industrial complex.


I mean it was a good idea worth testing
 
2022-02-20 9:39:36 PM  
Mad Mole of Liverpool was an amateur
 
2022-02-20 9:40:31 PM  

C18H27NO3: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions


Like using RADAR to reheat leftovers
 
2022-02-20 9:41:59 PM  

Meatsim1: Bennie Crabtree: C18H27NO3: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions

That's called the military industrial complex.

I mean it was a good idea worth testing


That's true.
 
2022-02-20 9:42:00 PM  

C18H27NO3: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions



Fark user imageView Full Size


/didn't watched assumed plowshare was mentioned
 
2022-02-20 9:46:32 PM  
Save the puddings
 
2022-02-20 9:51:19 PM  
All real ales bright and beautiful
All puddings great and small
All sausages so savoury
The big bomb fried them all.
 
2022-02-20 10:29:01 PM  

hoyt clagwell: [Fark user image image 250x200]


Came here for this
 
2022-02-20 10:36:24 PM  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.[5]
One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.[10]
Project Carryall,[11] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.[5]
A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[12][13]
At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive.[14] However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.
 
2022-02-20 10:45:47 PM  

HairBolus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.[5]
One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.[10]
Project Carryall,[11] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.[5]
A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[12][13]
At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil ...


Abandoned for a number of technical reasons? How about the health of the people who will live there for generations afterwards?

Nuclear technology - yes, good. Nuclear explosions - no, bad.
 
2022-02-20 10:54:58 PM  

whither_apophis: Save the puddings


My takeaway from the dining on my recent anniversary vacation: Prime Rib is not the same without

a) Yorkshire pudding
b) creamed spinach
 
2022-02-20 10:57:46 PM  

HairBolus: Abandoned for a number of technical reasons


As usual, Wikipedia entries are garbage. That phrase, alone, redirects every setence that precedes it, toward a big vague cloud of non-meaning. Go back ot the stuff you quoted and see how, in order to use "a number of technical reasons" in that entry, you need to actually obscure what each previous sentence means by suspending your knowledge of the nouns and verbs and the intutions and geography involved.

Wikipedia: pretending to be useful for science, but actually being edited for protecting companies from lawsuits, since 1899.
 
2022-02-20 11:13:38 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: HairBolus: Abandoned for a number of technical reasons

As usual, Wikipedia entries are garbage. That phrase, alone, redirects every setence that precedes it, toward a big vague cloud of non-meaning. Go back ot the stuff you quoted and see how, in order to use "a number of technical reasons" in that entry, you need to actually obscure what each previous sentence means by suspending your knowledge of the nouns and verbs and the intutions and geography involved.

Wikipedia: pretending to be useful for science, but actually being edited for protecting companies from lawsuits, since 1899.


You don't sound wrapped too tight.
I quoted that text because it contains a number of projects that were taken seriously by some people.
That Wikipedia lists them doesn't mean that the writers endorse them or think they were good ideas.
 
2022-02-21 12:25:56 AM  
Basically A Tom Scott Video
Youtube b-IEVMwBEfo
 
2022-02-21 12:51:42 AM  
I like Tom Scott as much as the next guy but in no way is this politics.
 
2022-02-21 4:12:56 AM  

HairBolus: You don't sound wrapped too tight.


Probably not. But I've read so many studies of Wikipedia edits and editors...over so many years...and yet people still use Wikipedia. And I think about all the studies that debunk the whole Wikipedia project, from top to bottom, granular and wide-ranging... And if I don't unwrap and fall to pieces then what is the point? It's all that's left.
 
2022-02-21 4:15:37 AM  

Frederf: I like Tom Scott as much as the next guy but in no way is this politics.


Watch it again and look at how the video decribes the government's behaviour regarding the environment and the local towns, and the way the government compared their project to Russia and the USA's hundreds of attempts. Consider the role of the government in infrastructure, and what the project meant for the direction of authority for things like eminent domain, and the implications for the USSR and the USA.
 
2022-02-21 6:46:48 AM  

Meatsim1: Bennie Crabtree: C18H27NO3: Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions

That's called the military industrial complex.

I mean it was a good idea worth testing

Peaceful Explosions of Nuclear Issued Smiles

 
2022-02-21 7:11:02 AM  
You cannot improve Yorkshires much more than this..

How To Make Yorkshire Puddings | Jamie Oliver
Youtube nUvIJqhq0KQ
 
2022-02-21 8:06:23 AM  

HairBolus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.[5]
One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.[10]
Project Carryall,[11] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.[5]
A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[12][13]
At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive.[14] However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.


Jfc, did they not have an understanding of fallout at that point? Let's excavate huge amounts of rock with nuclear explosions and litter anything downwind with radioactive dust for generations!
 
2022-02-21 8:21:46 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: HairBolus: You don't sound wrapped too tight.

Probably not. But I've read so many studies of Wikipedia edits and editors...over so many years...and yet people still use Wikipedia. And I think about all the studies that debunk the whole Wikipedia project, from top to bottom, granular and wide-ranging... And if I don't unwrap and fall to pieces then what is the point? It's all that's left.


Does anyone use wikipedia for actual scientific work? Wikipedia is great for what I generally use it as - a free encyclopedia that I can access from anywhere to satisfy my curiosity about a topic. Like any encyclopedia, it's a good starting place if you want an overview of a concept and a bibliography if you want to learn more, but it's not satisfactory as a primary or secondary source for research papers.

I use legal encyclopedias (American Jurisprudence, CJS) in the same way. If I am not familiar with a certain concept in bankruptcy (because I mainly do insurance work) but I need to educate myself on an issue, I can look at the encyclopedia and it will provide a description of the issue and various ways courts have handled it, and citations of important cases in the area so I can do my own follow up research. I'm always going to follow the citations and learn how courts in my jurisdiction are actually deciding the issue so I can correctly advise my client. I would never simply cite the encyclopedia, which is only periodically updated and may get the interpretations wrong or miss some nuance or distinguishing factor.
 
2022-02-21 4:07:18 PM  
Anyone else first think this was about the US Senator from South Carolina?
 
2022-02-21 8:48:20 PM  
I have nothing to add other than the fact that I like Tom Scott's videos.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.